Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 409 (PNJ)

V. K. Gupta v. Jagdev Industries, Phagwara

2003-03-11

HARJIT SINGH BEDI

body2003
JUDGMENT H.S. Bedi, J. - This appeal arises out of an award dated 28.4.1986 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh on the ground that the accident had not happened on account of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the car bearing registration No. PBT-8500. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as under :- 2. Appellant-V.K. Gupta, then aged 36 years was employed as a Scientist in the Central Scientific Instruments Organisation on a salary of Rs. 2000/-. At about 2 P.M. on 19.3.1983, he was going on foot on the left side in Sector 21 when a car belonging to respondent No. 1, which was insured with respondent No. 3-the National Insurance Company and was being driven by respondent No. 2-Mintoo, came from the opposite side and struck against him causing him serious injury. The accident led to the filing of this claim petition. 3. In their written statement, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 while admitting the accident, denied the circumstances leading to it. They also pleaded that as per the statement of the claimant, Exh. R-3, given to RW-4 ASI Ajemer Singh of Police Station Central, Chandigarh, it was the claimant himself, who had fallen on the road and suffered injuries. Various other pleas were also raised. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues :- 1. Whether V.K. Gupta, claimant sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident on 19.3.1983, as a result of rash and negligent driving of car No. PBT-8500 driven by Minoto respondent No. 2 ? If so, what is its effect ? OPP. 2. If issue No. 1 is proved to what amount of compensation is the claimant entitled and if so, against whom ? OPP. 3. Whether the claim petition is barred by limitation? OPP. 4. Relief. 5. Relying primarily on Exh. R-3, the statement purported to have been given by the claimant to ASI Ajmer Singh, the Tribunal held that the accident had happened on account of the fault of the claimant himself and accordingly absolved the car driver of any responsibility. 6. On issue No. 2, the Tribunal assessed a sum of Rs. 22,000/- as payable to the claimant on account of the injuries suffered by him. 6. On issue No. 2, the Tribunal assessed a sum of Rs. 22,000/- as payable to the claimant on account of the injuries suffered by him. Issue No. 3 was, however, decided in favour of the claimant and against the respondents by holding that the claim petition was within time. The Tribunal (on account of finding on issue No. 1) dismissed the claim petition. 7. It is against this award that the present appeal has been filed. 8. Mr. J.R. Mittal, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, has argued that the very nature of the injuries of the claimant suggested that they could not have been suffered by a fall on the road and the injuries were as a result of the impact of the vehicle and the appellant. He has accordingly pointed out that Exh. R-3 was concocted by ASI Ajmer Singh so as to help the accused in the criminal case. He has also urged that in view of the fact that the appellant had remained admitted in the Hospital for about 15 days and had multiple fractures on his person, the quantum of compensation was inadequate. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, has argued that the injuries on the person of the appellant were the result of a fall on the road. 10. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 11. To my mind, there appears to be merit in the stand taken by Mr. Mittal. The injuries suffered by the appellant are reproduced below :- "Multiple fracture of the ribs on the right side of chest namely 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th. There was flail injury of the chest with contusion of the underlying lung. There was no haemo pheumophorx. He had respiratory difficulty. He had fracture of right clavical, fracture of the right scapula and compound fracture of both bones of left leg. He was having a plaster of paris cast above knee on the left leg." 12. A bare perusal thereof would reveal that they could not be caused in the manner suggested in Exh. R-3 and were the result of a direct contact between the injured and the vehicle. It is also clear from the evidence of Dr. He was having a plaster of paris cast above knee on the left leg." 12. A bare perusal thereof would reveal that they could not be caused in the manner suggested in Exh. R-3 and were the result of a direct contact between the injured and the vehicle. It is also clear from the evidence of Dr. R.K. Suri (PW-3) that the patient had been brought to the PGI with a history of having sustained injuries in a road accident. The doctor also stated that there appeared to be a shortening of the left leg and that additionally several other complications had occurred on account of the injuries suffered by the appellant. 13. To my mind, therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that the story put forth in Exh. R-3 was to be accepted as being the gospel truth is incorrect as the very nature of injuries suggests otherwise. The finding of the Tribunal on issue No. 1 is accordingly reversed and it is held that the accident had happened on account of the rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver. 14. The question of compensation must now be examined. 15. The Tribunal had determined the compensation of Rs. 20,000/- towards permanent disability, pain and suffering and a sum of Rs. 2000/- by way of compensation towards medical expenses though nothing has been held to be actually payable. 16. It is true that the appellant has not produced any medical bill/cash memos on record. In this view of the matter, it would be difficult to enhance the compensation with respect to the cost of medicines etc. I am, however, of the opinion that the compensation determined towards permanent disability, pain and suffering as also the shortening of the left leg needs to be enhanced. It is true that no mathematical calculations can be made in such a case, but keeping in view the nature of injuries and the fact that he was working as a Scientist in the CSIO, Sector 30, Chandigarh, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation would be adequate under these heads. 17. This appeal is accordingly allowed and the compensation awarded to the appellant is enhanced from Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- under issue No. 2. However, the sum of Rs. 2000/- awarded towards medical expenses is retained as it is. 50,000/- as compensation would be adequate under these heads. 17. This appeal is accordingly allowed and the compensation awarded to the appellant is enhanced from Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- under issue No. 2. However, the sum of Rs. 2000/- awarded towards medical expenses is retained as it is. The total compensation to which the appellant would be entitled would thus come to Rs. 52,000/-, which shall be paid by the respondents jointly and severally but out of this amount a sum of Rs. 7500/- awarded by the Tribunal as ad-interim compensation would be deducted. The appellant shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the compensation amount from the date of the filing the claim application till its realisation. The compensation shall be paid within four months from the date that a certified copy of the order is supplied to the respondents. Appeal allowed.